 |
| |
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
not at all drake, its aimed at those who support bushs little adventure in Iraq. lets look at all the ways they were wrong.
1) cost. no it didnt cost $5 million, and no oil sales did not pay for iraqs reconstruction. whoever believed that is a ****ing idiot, and should feel used. and, oh yea, get your heads outta your asses and do some thinking for yourself instead of listening and swalling whole anything from fox news, cnn, ny times, or the white house press secretary.
2) national security risk to the US. nope, we didnt find any mobile weapon labs, and nope we didnt find any weapons grade plutonium from, of all places, nigeria, or did we find any actual weapons of that sort anywhere. yet again, whoever believed that is yet again, a ****ing idiot, and should feel used. and i dont care what the CIA/NSA/FBI/mossad/MI6/ your uncle on your moms side who has a source in army intelligence or bush said. use your brain a little wouldnt you? dont you find it a little suspicious that all of sudden theres a HUUGE threat from iraq and WMD, while those two words were not even in Bushs vocabulary prior to the world trade center attack?
3) al qaeda in iraq. nope, the only link between al qaeda and iraq before we came in and destroyed the infrastructure was that both words contain the letters q and a. all the dumb **** americans who have no idea about the world, our history in the region, the koran, and how the middle east comes together, and who believed this little lie should also feel as used as the bottom of my shoe sole.
did i miss anything? you guys know who you are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
fine, in that case it is for you too. it might do good, but for all the wrong reasons, and its at the wrong time. you know it, i know it, even bush knows it, but hes into personal vendettas. the iraq invasion has made us less safe, and has allowed al qaeda to operate in relative calm in their hotbeds outside of Afghanitan, including places like SOMALIA, and YEMEN, places were we shoulda gone instead of IRAQ. but iraqs got oil, those othe r places dont, so iraq it was.
bush and his cronies manipulated the **** outta your guys, and you got used, boy did you get used. probably the biggest hoodwink job in US history. but he still has a fanatical following, and he will use you again, and again, and again, because he knows you dont question him, no matter how many times he burns you guys.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
of course not, it makes us more open to attack, but you guys just dont get it. you dont see any shades of gray in the middle east, because none of you have a clue or bother to look at it from another perspective.
and then theres the ridiculous double speak. first you guys say you want us to be safer, but then you go off on adventures which makes us less safe, by ignoring the problem. thats like if you have the the flu and cancer, and your doctor gives you treatment for the flu and tells you 'we'll worry about the cancer later' hahahah how ridiculous, would you feel safer? i dare you to say yes. so enjoy our unsafe borders, our 'war on terror' which isnt targeting terror anymore, just remember how you are being used, misled, all because of your ignorance. and the sad part is that all the while, al qaeda can roam free in their real strongholds.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
well, lets look at that reasoning. lets start with some assumptions
1) we have limited resources
2) iraq takes up a lot of our resources
3) iraq takes up 80% of our armed forces
its a tradeoff. the more you put there, the less you can put in afghanista, in yemen, in somalia, where the terrorists really are. we cannot be in many places at once, and we went to the WRONG place. therefore, it has made us less safe. if you agree with the assumptions, then the only logical conclusion is that the iraq war has made us less safe. now, you can also stick your heads in the sand and just swallow what the lord god bush says, but then you guys would be getting used yet again.
has it worked out better then i thought? a thousand times better. has it put the middle east on a path towards democracy? no question. BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAR ON TERROR. the war on terror is the extermination of al qaeda. why is it that i get it, but no one else seems to. why are you people so easily clouded by smoke and mirrors?
and oh yea, how many top ranking al qaeda lieutenants have you caught in iraq? thats right, zero. so it would seem that iraq isnt drawing significant resources of al qaeda, or osama woulda sent in a top dawg to make sure **** doesnt hit the fan. but, wait, thats using reason, logic, and my brain. we cant be having that. zarquawai gets just enough support to be a nusiance. al qaeda is not fighting the battle in iraq. why should it? its goal is to destroy america at home, not in iraq. there are no america civilians there, no symbols of american power. so they send minimal support to iraq, and gather their forces in the dark alleys and pits of places that bush has overlooked.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
A stable Iraqi democracy right in the middle of all those wacko, extremeist, moslem states would be a happy thing.
Find Iraq among the following group:
 
I rest my case. |
Lets look at those smilies:
(Egypt, secular pro-US regime, second largest recipient of US foreign aid)
(Syria, secular, anti-US dictatorship)
(Jordan, pro-US monarchy)
(Saudi Arabia, Fundamentalist, pro-US absolute MOnarchy)
(Iraq, pro-US transitional regime)
(Iran, Anti-US fundamentalist Theocracy)
Its funny how only two of those have regimes that are actually anti-US, as opposed to significant US allies.
As for Iraq becoming a "stable democracy", we have no idea right now if that will happen, and in fact we have almost no say in whether that will be the outcome anyways. For a simple example, look at the trends in Latin America after the wave of new dmeocracies in the late 80's, early 90's. A few have become stable, some have slid backwards, like Venezuela, others are unstable (Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia). Whether Iraq will be a stable dmeocracy is out of the hands of the US even at this point, with 130,000 of our troops there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Don't put words in my mouth, *******. I didn't say "dramatically" lower.
I'm on track to win our bet, btw. |
OK, we will see.
quote:
Business - Reuters
Greenspan Warns Deficits Endanger Economy
1 hour, 31 minutes ago
By Glenn Somerville
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned on Thursday that unless lawmakers come to grips with spiraling U.S. deficits, the economy was at risk of stagnation "or worse."
"Under existing tax rates and reasonable assumptions about other spending ... projections make clear that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years," Greenspan told the Senate Budget Committee.
He said that while the U.S. economy was "doing well," the danger was that deficits would keep rising as a percentage of total national output.
"Unless that trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate or worse."
The early questioning from lawmakers focused narrowly on budget issues, rather than on the economic outlook or oil prices. Bond and stock markets showed little early reaction to Greenspan's remarks.
Much of the Fed chairman's testimony echoed prior cautions he has made to Capitol Hill lawmakers. He stressed that steps to fix the problem were essential.
"As the latest projections from the (Bush) administration and the Congressional Budget Office suggest, our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken," the Fed chief said.
GET CONTROL
Greenspan reiterated his call for some type of automatic government spending controls.
"In my judgment, the necessary choices will be especially difficult to implement without the restoration of a set of procedural restraints on the budget-making process," he said.
Bush has pledged to cut the budget gap in half by 2009. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 2005 budget shortfall will come in around $400 billion, including funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Fed chief has long urged renewal of so-called pay-go provisions that compel lawmakers to show how they will fund any spending initiatives or tax cuts.
Greenspan said the approaching surge of American retirees added urgency to the need to deal with budget constraints in light of uncertainty about the scale of looming medical and retirement costs.
"These uncertainties -- especially our inability to identify the upper bound of future demands for medical care -- counsel significant prudence in policy-making," Greenspan said, adding that policy-makers "need to err on the side of prudence when considering new budget initiatives."
Greenspan said the U.S. economy was growing at a reasonably good pace but noted "the positive short-term economic outlook is playing out against a backdrop of concern about the prospects for the federal budget."
Ronald Simpson, a managing director of Action Economics LLC in New York, said it seemed like a less-enthusiastic take on the economic outlook than that in the statement issued after the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee met on March 22, when it said national output was growing solidly.
"(It) sounds like a bit of a downgrade from the last FOMC statement which sounded a little more upbeat," Simpson said.
Greenspan repeated that the United States may already be in a position where it cannot meet commitments made to the baby boom generation and urged benefit cuts, if needed, be made as soon as possible.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How much are you guys willing to pay to address the root cause of Islamic terrorism by reforming the Middle East? Just curious... |
Uh, unless you mean killing them all and letting Allah sort 'em out, there ain't no "reforming" the middle east from outside. The Islamic fundamentalist *******s want to "reform" us into either good Muslims, or dead infidels. Needless to say, we tend to object to that idea and are willing to resist forcibly. In fact, given our loathing for what they represent, we're willing to resist forcibly for generations, if need be. Yet you're surprised that they'll be willing to resist for generations?
There isn't enough money or manpower in the world for outsiders of different religion, culture to "reform" the Islamic world. A thousand years ago, it was "crusades" - to the Islamist, same thing, different name.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2005 10:26
Attachment: 
|
